Blogcritics » Irreverent Misanthropehttp://blogcritics.org
The critical lens on today's culture & entertainmentTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:10:20 +0000en-UShourly1Movie Review: My Name is Khanhttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-my-name-is-khan/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-my-name-is-khan/#commentsSun, 14 Feb 2010 03:13:51 +0000In a film industry that has gained worldwide renown for being all about the song and dance, it is but natural for material to be recycled. And unlike the west, which despite its many flaws has both an admirable respect for the concept of copyright and conscience enough to credit a remake, over here, we just call it “inspiration”. After the shameless rip-off of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Dostana, 2008), which coincidentally was a huge commercial success, Karan Johar had a very good last year as producer, rolling out two strikingly dissimilar but similarly fresh films in Wake Up Sid and Kurbaan. He continues his roll this year, with his own directorial feature My Name is Khan, and ignoring his glaring shortcomings as a director, needs to be applauded for this effort to at least find new settings and formats for the retelling of his trademark love stories.

Similar to the first person narrative style of his directorial debut, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, My Name is Khan is a story heard through the tongue of the Asperger’s-afflicted Rizwan Khan, who journeys across half the world and then through the breadth of another continent, to say as we’ve all heard or read somewhere, “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist”. After watching the uninspiring trailers, and the edited, overly precious shots of Shahrukh playing Khan, I did not walk into the cinema expecting much from this seemingly gimmicky film. I walked out surprised though, and pleasantly for the most part. In a polarized world, where the line of demarcation is clearly becoming religion even over race, the intent of MNIK is noble. To its credit, unlike the also well intentioned Delhi 6 last year, this film manages to build on its premise more effectively. In a nutshell, the story is in the form of a question: Are the world and its inhabitants so far gone that you are not allowed an individual persona that may be separate from your religious affiliations?

My Name is Khan has many stories, and many Khans, in spite of what the titular protagonist may have you believing. There is Raziya Khan, the mother who brought up her son believing in him with faith and pride, and who ignored the rest of the world as she single-handedly taught him all that is right and just, even till her death. There is Zakir Khan, the under-appreciated but well loved younger brother, and Haseena Khan, his college professor wife, who are traditionalist Muslims but loyal family. There are Mandira and Sameer Khan, the mother and son who find a place in their lives for another, who seek love and happiness and the feeling of home. And there are the thousands of unnamed people, who in brief moments of time, Johar introduces us to, if only to show us the impact this Khan has on them. Independently, most of these stories, and most of these people, are interesting, but together, in this ambitious screenplay written by Shibani Bathija, none of the stories develop to real fruition.

I like to start with positive attributes, and this film has those in abundance. Like I’ve said multiple times before, the biggest success of this film is its intention. It’s pure and it’s refreshing. The casting is unusual for a Johar film (aside from the lead pair of course), and most of the supporting cast does a fine job. Zarina Wahab, a departure from the Kirron Kher and Jaya Bachchan mould of Dharma Production mothers, is very effective in her enthusiasm and both authentic and endearing in her manner. Jimmy Shergill is amongst the most underachieving of contemporary Indian actors (he was apparently a de facto choice after the actor originally cast for the film was denied a visa), and even though this isn’t his shining moment, he clearly needs to find a film where he can shine. Navneet Nishan is the cliché of the horny old woman/man Johar enjoys injecting into his films. The clear standout, though, is Sonya Jehan. It took me a while to place her as the actress who started out her career as the lead in Taj Mahal, but she is stunning, and a very gifted actor. Even in the few scenes that she has in the film, she will hopefully catch the eye of someone with a good script and a good role, ‘cause she has the looks and the acting chops, and deserves a shot.

The music of the film is the better of the two albums Shankar Ehsaan Loy have scored this year so far, and the tracks "Noor-e-Khuda" and "Sajda" and even "Tere Naina" are fantastic. One huge plus for the film, and this in fact pushes the film up an entire letter grade in my book, is the fantastic cinematography. Ravi K Chandran is nothing short of brilliant as he captures a panoramic view of the United States, especially in the scene at the point of intermission in the Arizona desert, and even in more intimate moments, such as the scene in the song "Tere Naina", whilst Kajol gives Khan a haircut, he uses natural light so effectively that it leaves you stunned. The look of the film also is suitably opulent without being jarring, in typical style for a Dharma film, and Kajol looks her best in years.

Of the leads, Kajol is good. Scratch that, she’s awesome in the material she’s been given, and in my personal opinion, after the crazy awesome turn she did in Dushman, this is perhaps her most accomplished performance. But more on that later. The film of course, unequivocally belongs to Khan. Shahrukh Khan has been called many things, but more often than not, a standout actor he is not. For so many years he has defined the term "star", and despite his many popular awards for Best Actor, apart from Chak de India, there is hardly another movie you could cite in which he was more an actor than a star (Swades was an awful bore for me, sorry!). In this film though, which I suspect was written specifically for him, he has the time and the meat to bite wholeheartedly into a game-changing role, and for the most part, passes brilliantly. He has a naturally intelligent sense of humour that he lends to his character and despite some of the cheesy lines that may put you off in the previews, this is an authentic, effective portrayal of a highly developed autist. Not even he can help pass this off as a masterpiece though.

The film has many flaws, and quite frankly, they overwhelm the film towards the climax. And that is very disheartening actually, because one hour and an intermission later, I actually thought it was turning out to be just brilliant. Whilst walking out of the cinema, I tried to figure out what changed in the second half. Perhaps it is a problem only I face, but dialogue is the crux of any film. It is what layers an idea into a screenplay, and what distinguishes achievement from ambition. Like I’ve said before, this script has ambition aplenty, but somewhere along the way, and it is my belief that it happened whilst penning the dialogues, it veers away from living up to its potential.

There are moments in the film where Johar and his collaborators could have perhaps opted for silence but instead choose to go for dramatic emphasis. It is the single threads of wool that make the quilt warm though, and in this particular case, just as you start to feel toasty, it shrinks to nothing. Also, unbelievably disappointing was the way they wrote bits of Kajol’s character and the initial interaction between her and Khan. Her opening scene and the terrible dialogue make you cringe at best, and then the constant fixture of Khan, a traveling salesman in her salon, was inexplicable.

There are two points on which I am going to elaborate here. First, the premise of Khan’s journey, whilst interesting, and some of his moments on the road, such as his meeting the motel owner played by Vinay Pathak, agreeably insightful, there is such a thing as too much. By the end of the film, the only good deed Khan had not done was blowing away Hurricane Katrina with the power of his breath, and honestly, I feel sure that Bathija at least considered giving him the Nobel Peace Prize. To go from entertaining to arduous in 20 minutes is a lesson to be learned from this screenplay. Secondly, the crisis in the film, once again, seemed so juicy to Johar and his associates, that they gave it not just one harrowing scene but two. Whilst the first was passable, if only because of Kajol’s natural talent, the second was just overkill. It was loud, obnoxious, unreal, and odious. What should have been a pivotal moment became a terribly overacted sham.

These may seem like a lot of shortcomings, but in truth and in all honesty, these are all of them. And since I’m being honest, they are far fewer than I thought they would be. And at the point of the interval, I couldn’t remove the smile plastered on my face, even if I tried. Whilst the second half may have been a tremendous letdown to the buildup of the first, it wasn’t all bad, and in a hackneyed sort of way, Johar does somehow get his message out. And it is a message that needs to be out. This may not be the best film Johar has made (KKHH will retain that for some time to come), but it is, at the very least far better than any other film to come out of his direction (and I’m counting the awful Kal Ho Naa Ho in that mix). Watch it, if only once, if only for Shahrukh Khan and Kajol together on screen, if only for the beautiful landscape of the US through RKC’s lens, or if only because not every Khan is a terrorist.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-my-name-is-khan/feed/13Movie Review: Ishqiyahttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-ishqiya/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-ishqiya/#commentsSun, 31 Jan 2010 03:35:57 +0000Ishqiya is the directorial debut of Abhishek Chaubey, but it feels like a seasoned filmmaker's job.]]>The tragedy of contemporary Indian cinema is that, much like everything else that’s contemporary in India, it’s just not Indian. In a country with a rural population far exceeding the urban elite, a fact clearly evidenced in political elections, it’s somehow inexplicable that film characters and plots very rarely are written in a non-urban-centric environment. In fact, more often than not, we find ourselves with foreign locales conveniently dressed up with all-Indian casts, right from the British (Indian) butler, to the Bahamian (Indian) chief of police. In such a scenario, it’s more than anything else a sight for sore eyes to see a raw, rustic story being told through the tongue of an everyman.

In this deeply dissatisfying scenario, Vishal Bhardwaj has time and again brought us entertainment that is rooted in the ethos of Indian-ness. Whether it was Makdee or Maqbool, Omkara or Kaminey, Bhardwaj went from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar to Maharashtra to West Bengal and fleshed out characters that are real, relatable, and more than anything else, incredibly entertaining. Perhaps that is why, from being an underfinanced independent filmmaker, he now stands in a position to have his own production company support fledgling newcomers like Abhishek Chaubey, who make cinema of the newest brand which, for want of a better term, I’m going to call Bhardwaj-esque.

Ishqiya is a prime example of cinema that brings back the feeling of the cinema of Shyam Benegal or Gulzar, but is emphatic in its purpose, which is, like all other movies under the Bhardwaj banner, unadulterated entertainment. Headlined by Vidya Balan, Naseeruddin Shah, and Arshad Warsi, it takes us on a ride from Bhopal to Gorakhpur to Faizabad and back, and introduces us to characters as nutty as Iftiqar (Shah) and Babban (Warsi) and as layered as Krishna (Balan).

The story of Ishqiya is simple enough, albeit a little indulgent to plot points. Babban and Iftiqar are on the run from a goon named Mushtaq and they run into Krishna, the widow of Vidyadhar Verma. What happens next is a delicious continuum of twists and turns, some that make you sit up and some that make you dizzy. The movie has everything that a caper film in the ilk of Kaminey needs, but instead treads a delicate balance between an unconventional romance and a tribute to noir. The duo solicit the help of Krishna and construct a plan to get out of a potentially life-threatening debt and at the same time, earn enough to retire to a life of luxury. Are there mixed motives though? Or do, per usual, the best laid plan of mice and men go askew? This is what follows in the meandering journey these three unlikely accomplices take.

The treatment is what makes this film special. Like all films before this, Bhardwaj pays incredible attention to detail in his dialogues, and they’re appropriately crass, whilst remaining effectively authentic. He gets the dainty Balan to mouth words you’d think she didn’t know the meaning of with such consummate ease that you get effortlessly sucked into the world where gang wars are treated like real wars and children of different castes are initialized into weaponry at (Bhardwaj uses colorful language to describe this) the age of potty training. There is more than a touch of humor in the movie, and most of it is induced by the dialogue and its delivery, both of which are impeccable. I’ve read that the film was shot on set in suburban Bombay, and in that case, the set decorator and the DOP deserve special plaudits for very efficiently creating the required ambience to take us back to the days of Ankur and Mrityudand.

As he has grown with his direction, so Bhardwaj has improved his musical scoring. Amongst the only composers left to rely solely on traditional Indian melody, he creates a score that is rich, textured, perfectly fitting, and that creates a mood that elevates this already very good film quite a few notches. The positioning of each song also is done immaculately, and Chaubey does a particularly fantastic job of interweaving the music with the flow of the story, and also for directing the song sequences themselves, so that at no point do they take away from the movie.

The trump card of Ishqiya, however, is its characters. A special shout out must go to the casting director who does a spectacular job of casting each and every role, such that the parts seem like they were written for the actors playing them, even though you’ve never seen any of them do anything remotely similar. Shah is potent as usual, and shows innocence, despondence, vulnerability, and charm as well as he ever has. Warsi finds a role for the first time since the memorable Circuit in the Munnabhai franchise that suits him to a T, and he grabs onto it with both hands. He treads the path of too much in a few scenes, but is just about perfect for the role, and does complete justice. Amongst the supporting cast, the child actor playing Nandu has only a couple of scenes, but is precocious without being annoying and is the standout in the supporting cast. The film however unequivocally belongs to Vidya Balan.

Krishna is at times a victimized widow and at times a wily nymphet, and Balan transforms with just the tiniest shift in expression, or the most insignificant gesture, from one to another that her performance in this film could actually be studied in film school. She is clearly out of her regular style of work (as evidenced by her previous films) but fleshes out a character that is so real and oozes with sensuality that she ends up being irresistible. This film was probably shot before Paa, and Balan still carries some of the weight she had lost for Paa, but in the saris she wears, she has never looked as hot as she does in this film. Even though they look nothing alike, she manages in this film to bring back the memories of the raw sensuality of Smita Patil, and she clearly has the acting prowess to match as well. Undeniably the most powerful female character in cinema since Shabana Azmi in Godmother, this is the best performance by an actress in years, and if Balan does not get her due for this film, she probably never will, because this is one hard act to follow. She is the heart and soul of this film, and rightly so.

All Bhardwaj films have genius titles, and this film isn’t any different, and what is more, it is very fitting. The film is all about Ishqiya, and as corny as it sounds, it won’t be odd if many of you feel the ishq or crush long after you’ve left the cinema.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-ishqiya/feed/1Australian Open: Final Weekend Predictionshttp://blogcritics.org/australian-open-final-weekend-predictions/
http://blogcritics.org/australian-open-final-weekend-predictions/#commentsThu, 28 Jan 2010 21:08:07 +0000I didn’t have great luck with my predictions on Day 1 but in my defense, it was a while since we saw them play a Grand Slam (especially given the hectic tennis calendar). Nonetheless, I’ve had better luck since and am here with my predictions for the final weekend.

The unseeded Europeans come up against the top-seeded pair in this final. Black and Paes had a tough semifinal and at many times looked like they could be out of it, but came through after two tough tiebreaks and a super tiebreak. In sharp contrast, Makarova and Levinsky cruised through the first set without dropping a game, lost the second set and came back strong to win the super tiebreak 10-8. It’s a tough call between the two, but I think the pair from India/Zimbabwe will pull through, if only on experience.

Both the ladies and the men’s doubles finals have the No. 1 and 2 teams facing off. On the ladies side, it was the No. 2 pair Williams sisters winning it, but it may be a different story here. The Bryan brothers are high on confidence in their first Grand Slam tournament since they regained their No. 1 ranking, and they’re hungry to hold on to it. Both teams had tough quarterfinals, making it through on tie breaks, but the Bryans did it a little bit better. They should be adequately rested for this final though, having relatively simple semi finals. It’ll be interesting to see who takes the first set, as it may set the tone of the match.

The wildcard Justine Henin has shown the true spirit of the game. Coming back after her 20-month self imposed exile, Henin is in already in her second consecutive championship match. On the way to the Aussie Open Final this year, she has claimed the scalps of Jie Zheng, Elena Dementieva (in the second round, no less), Yanina Wickmayer and Nadia Petrova (who took out the reigning US Open queen Kim Clijsters). She’s toiled through some of them, used tact through others, but in her semifinal match against Zheng she used sheer class and brilliance and walked all over her opponent 6-1 6-0, not dropping a single game after the opener.

Serena Williams, however, is quite another story. She’s a genius player, a fighter, and a winner. As the defending champion here, she recently became world No. 1 and is also the top seed. She defended her doubles crown with sister Venus and is looking for her fifth Australian Open championship. She had a tough match with Li Na in the semifinal, but came through after two tie breaks. She knows the ropes, has the experience, and has the desire.

It’s as tough a call as any between these two, with Serena leading the head-to-head history 7-6. It is interesting to note though that in the last five times these two have played, as well as in the last five Grand Slam meetings they’ve had, Henin leads 3-2. This is the first time they play each other in the Australian Open, but as Henin said, if she wants to become a Grand Slam champion again, it is only fitting that she beat the best in the world to do it.

The match that everyone wanted at last year’s Wimbledon will finally be played out on Sunday at Rod Laver Arena. Murray, long called a contender has to prove he isn’t just another pretender. Federer has a chance to make it 16 Grand Slams.

Murray made it quietly through his draw. Without much fuss or expectation, the Scottish lad had a relatively flip-floppy last year, rising as high as No. 2 and subsequently falling to No. 5. The one big hurdle he faced, defending champion Rafael Nadal, succumbed to a knee injury in their quarterfinal and Murray must’ve heaved a sigh of relief. Marin Cilic, who had to go through Juan Martin Del Potro and Roddick, not to mention a brilliant Bernard Tomic, could not match the Scot in their semifinal and, despite his early lead and perhaps due to fatigue from his many five set matches, fell to Murray in four sets. For the second time in his career, Andy Murray is at the brink of tasting Grand Slam success.

Meanwhile, Federer has had the toughest draw amongst the top seeds, starting off with Igor Andreev. He dropped a set early, but shook off the early nerves and marched on 6-0 in the fourth set to wrap up the match. He had an easy couple of matches against Victor Hanescu and Albert Montanes before he reached the round of 16. Federer was placed against former No. 1 but currently 22nd-seeded Lleyton Hewitt. The difference in their rankings wasn’t key though, as everyone knows a Grand Slam champion on a good day is as good as any other player in the world. Federer played unbelievable tennis against Hewitt and walked out of that match in straight sets as well.

Federer’s biggest challenge also came in the quarterfinals. Playing the always dangerous Nikolay Davydenko, who beat him in their last two meetings, Federer himself admitted he was worried his streak of 22 consecutive Grand Slam Singles semifinal appearances might be broken. The match started off on a misstep, and the harsh sunlight and a slew of unforced errors meant the World No. 1 was down two breaks on his way to losing the first set. The second set seemed to follow suit, until at 2-3 and down a break, something happened. Federer would win the next 11 games en route to leading 2-6 6-3 6-0 1-0. The fourth set was tough as Davydenko fought back, and the two traded breaks until Federer finally found a way to wrap things up at 7-5. The semifinal was as easy as it could get as Federer routinely broke the Tsonga serve without offering a single break chance on his own service. In straight sets, and perhaps his best form of the tournament so far, Federer won 6-2 6-3 6-2 in less than 90 minutes.

Murray leads the head-to-head 6-4, but in their only other Grand Slam meeting (the 2008 US Open finals), Federer won in relatively simple straight sets. Federer also recently broke Murray's four match winning streak against him with back-to-back wins in Cincinnati and London. With their current tournament form, and Federer’s ruthless annihilation of the otherwise brilliant Tsonga, it’d be hard to place a bet against him.

Prediction: Federer in three or four sets.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/australian-open-final-weekend-predictions/feed/1Movie Review: The Invention of Lyinghttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-invention-of-lying1/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-invention-of-lying1/#commentsThu, 28 Jan 2010 19:18:56 +0000Imagine a world where no one can tell a lie. Ricky Gervais (who co-wrote, co-directed, and stars) creates such a utopia and then makes himself the only exception, the special one. He then proceeds to repeatedly have everyone call him a loser, until they realize that he’s the real winner, and everyone lives happily ever after (or at least his character, Mark Bellison, does).

That is essentially the sum and substance of The Invention of Lying. Much like Edison and Einstein, Bellison (a play on Edison and Bell?) chances upon his discovery quite by accident. In his case, the stimulus was desperation. Faced with eviction and unemployment and insolvency, Bellison does something involuntary, and finds something wonderful happening.

Gervais needs to be commended for his inventiveness. Taking the basest of human instinct and creating an alternate reality around it, Gervais weaves a story that is unmistakably original and potentially brilliant. Especially in such a story though, how you execute each scene increases exponentially in importance. Somehow, Gervais misses the play here, and what results is a long experience of tedium. It isn’t that he doesn’t try, in all earnestness, to form a complete story, it’s just that he doesn’t have that much of a plot, and his meandering through the mess of Bellison’s life to find one is an arduous watch.

In this world of Gervais’ creation, of course, there can be no Church, no concept of science, because everything just is. There isn’t even a word for truth or lies, because there isn’t a distinction. Everything you say is, or, like Bellison says, his power is to “say something that wasn’t.” Instead of examining the implications of the lack of such fundamental institutions as religion and reasoning, Gervais chooses to go the rom-com route and study the ramifications of the lack of free will. This he translates to a lack of feeling and automated, reasoned decision-making, and a painfully oft-repeated “search for a genetic match.”

Jennifer Garner is brazen and brave for trying to flesh out a character, but with a paper thin character sketch, does nothing significant. Gervais has a fantastic role to play with, but really, and maybe it’s just me, he’s so inherently unlikable that it is difficult for anyone to root for him. There are a bunch of interesting cameos thrown in here as well, from the likes of Jason Bateman and Tina Fey, but none really hit home. There is a lack of sincerity, or perhaps of identification, and instead of being honest, they come across as mean and unlikable.

Also, perhaps for comic effect, Gervais not only makes it impossible for anyone to lie, but also to contain thoughts, and everyone is sharing what they’re doing, or thinking, and whilst highly comical in theory, for the duration of the 100 odd minutes this picture lasts, can become quite an ordeal. In essence, I would say, that whilst this is just me and my sheer inability to enjoy the humour of Gervais (I’m amongst the very few who enjoy the American adaptation of The Office infinitely more than the British one), The Invention of Lying just isn’t smart enough to not need to be hilarious. Not every comedy gives you a stitch in your side, but it’s rare that you find yourself cringing more often than smiling, and when that happens, you know you’re watching the wrong movie.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-invention-of-lying1/feed/0Movie Review: Three Short Films by Jason Reitmanhttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-three-short-films-by1/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-three-short-films-by1/#commentsSat, 16 Jan 2010 21:59:06 +0000After watching Up In the Air, I decided that it was time I waded through the earlier works of Jason Reitman, in the short film style, to see if the spark and spunk that embody his feature films were always evident. After scouring YouTube in various permutations and combinations, I managed to find three of the six films listed on IMDb. If anyone has H@, Uncle Sam, and/or Operation, please drop me a line or send me a link, because that would about complete my Reitman filmography. I was already an ardent fan of his work on my favourite show, The Office. Anyhoo, the three films I did watch were Gulp, In God We Trust, and Consent.

I’m going to start with Consent. In terms of execution and style the most evolved of Reitman’s short films, it clearly displays the sardonic voice that distinguishes his feature films as well. The plot of Consent is simple: a boy and girl are fooling around in bed and before they go further, seek mutual consent for all the forthcoming activities. How Reitman makes this hilarious with the trademark dry humour best witnessed in his most clever film, Thank You for Smoking, is what makes this interesting. A good film, especially of the very short variety, needs that knockout punch at the end, and Reitman clearly delivers. His cast also does a fine job, albeit a little raw around the edges. I would say this was the best indicator of the kind of feature filmmaker he would go on to become.

Coming now to Gulp, clearly a misfire that tries so hard to be funny that it just isn’t. In this film, Reitman tells the story of a guy who realizes he has unwittingly put his fish’s life in jeopardy by placing it in fresh water. Perhaps this was meant to be funny in that incredible way The Hangover made a mark, but somehow watching a guy run around town to save a fish he apparently loves, and yet doesn’t know well enough to keep in salt water, just didn’t cut it. In an age in which Twilight became a phenomenon, at best it's a sad sad display of how silly the New Age American post-teen can be, and that doesn’t make me laugh.

Finally, we come to the film that had me conflicted, but not quite disappointed. In God We Trust, a slightly long short film, clocking in at close to 17 minutes, is in equal parts an important film for Reitman and yet not quite all that it could be. The story is a traditional heaven vs. hell one, with a points system that decides a dead person’s fate. He adds an interesting technological twist to the proceedings, and follows the transition of a man who manages to escape back to Earth after being sentenced to an eternity in Hell with a -198 scorecard. It’s interesting to note the parallels between this film and Up In the Air with Reitman’s preoccupation with points in both storylines. Though definitely entertaining, there is a certain predictability that comes with this plot that keeps it from being fantastic.

So there you have it. I’m still only halfway through the short films of Jason Reitman, and even though I could never see these competing for an Academy Award alongside such gems as Martin McDonagh’s Six Shooter, they are nevertheless thoroughly entertaining and worthy precursors to Reitman’s much more refined works as a feature filmmaker. Most importantly, they’re interesting to watch as a study of a transition of sensibilities over the years. I’m going to grade these films collectively, because they come together from a common fibre, and also because I think you don’t need a grade to help you determine whether or not to watch a four-minute film. When you have a free moment, you know the answer is yes.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-three-short-films-by1/feed/1Australian Open 2009: Day 1 Predictionshttp://blogcritics.org/australian-open-2009-day-1-predictions/
http://blogcritics.org/australian-open-2009-day-1-predictions/#commentsSat, 16 Jan 2010 15:18:10 +0000It’s Grand Slam season again. The Australian Open, the Grand Slam tournament of the Asia Pacific, kicks off with action from superstars like Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova, Rafael Nadal, Andy Roddick, Andy Murray, Marin Cilic and Juan Martin Del Potro. Federer will headline play on Tuesday, but for now, these are my predictions for Monday.

Back after a long injury break, Sharapova has not lost a match here since lifting the trophy in 2008. It’s interesting to note that Clijsters hadn’t lost a match at the US Open before her comeback, and she’s the defending champion now, so Sharapova would be hoping for the same kind of fortitude.

Having played Kirilenko three times before, Sharapova emerged victorious twice, whilst retiring trailing 1-2 in the second set of the semifinals in Beijing in 2005. The two haven’t met since 2006 and Kirilenko has plummeted to No. 58 in the world rankings. And yet, since all the matches between these two have been hard fought, so will this one.

Prediction: Sharapova be victorious in two tough sets; one of them going to the tie break.

Other matches on Rod Laver Arena:Easy wins for Clijsters, Nadal, Murray, and a tough-fought three-set win for home favourite underdog Jelena Dokic.

Other ladies’ matches to watch out for: • Henin on her comeback trail should wipe the court of Hisense Arena with her compatriot Kristen Flipkens.

• Anna Chakvedatse should upset No. 12 seed Flavia Pennetta if she were to play with any of the class that had her in the top five of women’s tennis.

Stepanek is on great form, ending runner-up to Roddick at the Brisbane International. But Karlovic, the big-serving Croat, is a danger to anyone receiving who isn’t named Federer.

Stepanek has not yet lost a match to Karlovic, and probably won’t if he plays anywhere near his best, but you can expect this to be a long battle with plenty of easy service holds, especially for Karlovic. The two had an incredible Davis Cup match last year, going to 16-14 in the final set, while all the others were decided on tiebreaks. Stepanek can run down almost anything and is a veteran of the long drawn match whilst Karlovic has, well, probably ace No. 40 for the match all set up.

Prediction: Very tough to call, despite Stepanek’s class on paper. I’m picking Stepanek in 4 sets, with three going to the wire.

Other men’s matches to watch out for:• Marin Cilic playing veteran Fabrice Santoro who is “not playing a comeback” match. Expect Cilic to win easily, on the back of his Chennai defense.

• Not much excitement on the first day of the men’s event, with probably easy wins for Roddick, Del Potro and Gael Monfils.

• There should be plenty of excitement from the local crowd while watching 17-year-old Bernard Tomic. Last year he was the youngest man to make the second round. He shouldn’t do much better this time, but you can bet he’ll command a crowd nonetheless when he takes Margaret Court Arena.

• The only possible upset could be James Blake against former runner up Arnaud Clement.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/australian-open-2009-day-1-predictions/feed/0Movie Review: Wake Up Sidhttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-wake-up-sid/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-wake-up-sid/#commentsSat, 16 Jan 2010 01:15:42 +0000Coming of age is a unique genre in cinema, in that even though from movie to movie the story remains mostly the same, depending on the treatment you may make either a forgettable disaster, or the next Garden State. No film better exemplifies this in recent memory than Wake Up Sid. Telling the oft-told story of a boy finding his way into manhood, the movie has all the regular devices one would expect in such a film (punchlines, driven female stimulus, familial disagreement, etc.), but finds a way to rise above the mediocre because of an infusion of soul and life into every single character.

Headlining the proceedings is Siddharth Mehra, a 20-something almost graduate who goes from Mr. Popular to the “one who flunked out” in a commerce college in Bombay. As is typical with such stories, Sid, the titular protagonist, is affluent, spoiled, and sleepwalking through life hanging on to the coattails of his father’s wealth. Again, typically, he may be flawed, embarrassed at associating himself with “flower showers,” his father’s legacy that he so easily uses for his material needs, but at the core, has a good heart. He is detached and unwilling to commit though, either to relationships (as is evident in both his dealings with his parents and his advice to his about-to-propose friend) or to work, and, in his own words, “just want[s] to have fun.”

In stark contrast to Sid is the pivotal character of Aisha. She’s the “new girl in the city.” She’s driven, has already lined up a job interview, and is bold and brazen enough to go on a late night walk in a strange city with a guy she just met at a party. She is traditional though, and immediately clarifies that she doesn’t want to sleep with Sid. This highlights the relationship between the two throughout the film, with Aisha motivating Sid to be all he can, without ever telling him he must.

The beauty of Wake Up Sid truly comes from the well-crafted characters and the natural, fluid dialogue between them. They say that life is made up of millions of small moments. The same is true of cinema, and every film comes together as a series of interchanges between characters. Unfortunately, most films seem to miss this point, and get lost in translation. Ayan Mukherjee and Niranjan Iyengar do a surprisingly good job of writing the screenplay and especially dialogue, especially a standout angry exchange between Ranbir Kapoor, Anupam Kher, and Supriya Pathak. Every teenager who at some time found themselves drifting and couldn’t bring themselves to care will relate to Sid, his frustration, his unspeakable regret, and his wrathful outburst.

In terms of performances, everyone is at the top of their games, with Konkona Sen being an obvious best. Supriya Pathak and Anupam Kher are also brilliant, in roles so well played out that you often forget it’s a scripted drama. The music by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, and more specifically the background score and the track "Iktara," both composed by Amit Trivedi, are enjoyable and help greatly with the flow of the film.

The movie is not without faults, of course. Ranbir Kapoor, in perhaps the most well-suited role of his career, for the most part does a fantastic job of being the very likable vagabond. In some scenes however, especially of a more serious tone, he does tend to be a little too earnest. In addition, Mukherjee tends to resort to plot clichés to further the story more often than necessary. Finally, the biggest letdown came in the form of the only article written by Aisha that we get to hear. Not only is it impertinent to her column name, but following the build-up, it is very disheartening to be given only a crushing RJ’s sermon when we expect a writer’s epiphany. If God is in the details, Mukherjee loses several opportunities to make the movie a beacon, satisfied instead with standard cinematic cop-outs.

In a climate of unoriginal plots and recycled characters, however, Wake Up Sid is worth watching, maybe even renting for a second viewing. Full of hope, optimism, and a sheer feel-good feeling, it makes you want to be young again. It makes you want to walk in the rain, click photographs in Chor Bazaar, trade your mundane job for a day at Mumbai Beat, but most importantly, it makes you want to, especially for Bombay natives, find a moment to enjoy just being.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-wake-up-sid/feed/2Movie Review: Chance Pe Dancehttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-chance-pe-dance1/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-chance-pe-dance1/#commentsFri, 15 Jan 2010 22:06:26 +0000Chance pe Dance is the third collaboration between actor Shahid Kapoor and director Ken Ghosh. And much like Ishq Vishq and Fida before this, Kapoor is almost the only good thing in the movie. Almost. The fresh faced Genelia D’Souza thankfully replaced Jiah Khan and is the only reason I enjoyed Chance Pe Dance more than Ghosh’s earlier two films.

The story is one you’ve heard before, most recently in the 2009 release Luck by Chance. Kapoor plays a struggling actor who travels from Delhi to Bombay to become a hero, because, well, everyone since his birth thought he should be. Not the film industry though. Much like the thousands who come here every year, Sameer Behl (Kapoor) goes from audition to audition, most often getting passed over by a less talented but better connected pretender. Eventually though, the contender gets his due (obviously), and we spend two predictable hours finding out how. Sonia Sharma (D’Souza) is a budding choreographer who crosses paths with him over and over, becoming his life coach and girlfriend in this milieu.

To his credit, Ghosh keeps the story light, with no unnecessary emotional drama. Sameer has a good relationship with his father despite his career choice, he never faces too bad a scrap, and even when the going gets really bad, he doesn’t forget to wear his designer glasses or his smile. The humor, scattered generously through the film, isn’t particularly intelligent, but then, neither are the characters, and the sheer likability of the two leads helps you wade through it, relatively dry.

Another positive in this film is the way Ghosh has chosen to shoot his non-dance songs, two in particular. In the track "Rishta Hai Mera," he shows the aspirations and ambitions of the characters by making them larger than life, using digital imagery to make them sit on bridges and walk taller than buildings. Whether this device has been used before I cannot say, but in this track I felt it worked really well. Also, in the romantic number "Pal Mein Hi," he uses a warm yellow filter which I feel added a certain ambience without being overbearing as in Ram Gopal Verma's “blue” films.

The film is far from perfect though. Kapoor has always been one of the best dancers in the Indian film industry, having trained and taught under Shaimak Davar, and this is the first dance film that he has made. It is a wonder then that the actor was dissatisfied with this film as his first out-and-out display of his immense talent on the dance floor. Despite the posters of Michael Jackson, So You Think You Can Dance, and Chicago that adorn his walls throughout the movie, there is barely a glimmer of great dance. Even for D’Souza, who is supposed to be the choreographer, neither is the opening sequence jaw-dropping nor is anything else. What was most distracting, though, was the terrible, angle shifting and frame cutting that is used in almost all the dance sequences, including the one at an inter-school dance competition. None of it was worthy of a dance movie.

Most of the first half is a drag, because while well conceived (if that were possible in the clichéd setup, that is), it is very loosely written and not engaging. The dance numbers are few, far between, and far away from being fierce or fiery. The music, whilst not annoying, lacks a certain punch. There is a moment about five minutes before the interval though, that the situation comes to a boil, and one can almost smell a satisfying second half. No such luck though, as the crisis that we anticipate an entertaining solution to resolves itself too soon. And so Ghosh thought it wise to add more twists and turns at breakneck speed, until you just want it to end. There is not a worse scene than Behl’s final acting audition though, and it is at that point that the film slips half a grade point in my mind.

What struck me the most, though, is that even though Behl complains about his being overlooked and all the other sad things in life (a scene I thought, by the way, Kapoor performed remarkably well), there’s a scene toward the end, where his father, sitting in faraway Delhi, can’t switch a channel without his son being on it. There could’ve been a less subtle way to bring him to his destiny I suppose, and am therefore just glad that Ghosh did not know of it.

To be completely fair, I think Chance Pe Dance is not without merit. It struck me as a better film than Luck by Chance, and could have even been in the league of Jab We Met had it been handled better. Of the leads, Genelia is cute, fits her role to a T, and perhaps would’ve been even more likable had she had a more substantial part. Shahid Kapoor does a very good turn as well, which is surprising, because in the trailers it seems like he is hamming his way through the film. His hairstyle though, is another thing. Until the final scene in the film, where he finally gets them cropped, Kapoor is carrying forward the disastrous mop of Dil Bole Hadippa.

So, would I recommend that people watch the movie? Yes, I think, mainly because it only promises to be a frothy romantic comedy, and does deliver in part on that. Is it fair to call it a dance movie? No, and that is my main problem with it. Like Aaja Nachle before this, the producers failed to work on their basic premise, which was to have great dance. With dancers in the league of Madhuri Dixit or Shahid Kapoor in this instance, and stories revolving around their dance, it seems criminal to shortchange them in the choreography department. Even the Dil Bole Hadippa mix was better choreographed. So if you’re looking for a Desi Step Up, I would rather sit at home and watch an episode of Dance India Dance.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-chance-pe-dance1/feed/0Movie Review: The Incredible Hulk Is Quite A Credi(ta)ble Efforthttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-incredible-hulk-is1/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-incredible-hulk-is1/#commentsThu, 26 Jun 2008 07:49:35 +0000Everyone loves a superhero, but apparently no one wants to be one. At least that's what Marvel and its accidental superheroes will have us believe. One of the most paradoxical of these is the Hulk, the all-powerful alter-ego of Bruce Banner.

When Stan Lee co-created this accidental overdose of gamma radiation, he intended him to be more realistic than the cape-toting superheroes. When Zak Penn wrote The Incredible Hulk, he had a lot more to worry about. Not only did he have to improve tremendously on the disappointing Ang Lee version with Eric Bana, he had to re-create the magic of the TV series. The first step he took in the right direction was keeping the name from the series, The Incredible Hulk.

This movie was intended to be a sequel to the 2003 movie. When Edward Norton signed on to play Banner, though, he re-wrote a lot of the script to add flashbacks and allowed the film to instead become chapter one of an independent series. And I think this freedom from association really helped give the film a very individualistic character.

So, as the movie progresses past the titles, which show in flashes the effect of the excessive gamma radiation and the transformation of Banner, we join the fugitive superhero in Brazil, where he's trying to get rid of the Hulk. At the same time, he's trying very hard to avoid any incident until he finds a cure for his affliction. Through some terrific action sequences, we follow him as he returns inevitably to the States, and naturally runs into his ex-girlfriend Betty Ross, who coincidentally happens to be the daughter of the man responsible for his condition, General Ross. All you comic book fans already know what happens next — Blonksy, a Russian agent on loan to Ross, tries to confront the Hulk, and the battle begins.

The director, Louis Letterier, employs very well the natural talent of Norton, Liv Tyler, and Tim Roth, and makes the film darker than Spider-Man and more believable than Superman. The computer-generated imagery of the Hulk, very thoroughly criticized in The Hulk, is improved a great deal, and even the Abomination (though not addressed as that in the film) is also portrayed as a realistic and gradual transition. Another trump card used by Letterier is using the voice of Lou Ferrigno as that of the Hulk, which would definitely help humanize and familiarize the character to viewers.

The screenplay is taut, fast moving, and very self-contained. In fact, even Hulk novices could watch the movie, and not only enjoy but also gather a pretty clear understanding of the sequence of events, except of course the David Banner era, which we can, for now, just pretend wasn't there. The climax is very well conceptualized and the open ending leaves enough chance for multiple conclusions, either with only the Hulk or the Avengers.

The performances by the entire cast are exemplary. Norton as Banner is dead on in his usual hesitant drawl-y demeanor, and Tyler is very effective as the girlfriend who tames the Hulk. On a side note, is it just me or has Tyler gotten broader as she's progressed in age? Moving on though, Roth is very good as the poorly aging warrior with power as his only aspiration. Similarly, the cameos including the one by Farrigno are perfectly cast.

The Incredible Hulk is entertaining cinema at its almost best. It doesn't try to break any barriers of commercial cinema, but for a summer blockbuster, along with Iron Man, this year it's probably worth your while to visit The Incredible Hulk. I'd score the film on a scale of 1-10 at a very good 8.

]]>http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-the-incredible-hulk-is1/feed/0Movie Review: Mithyahttp://blogcritics.org/movie-review-mithya/
http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-mithya/#commentsMon, 23 Jun 2008 04:18:51 +0000The last time Rajat Kapoor directed a movie, he made a screwball comedy called Bheja Fry and hit an unforeseen jackpot. Vinay Pathak broke through the barrier of the unconventional hero in a commercial film (one that formerly Rajpal Yadav tried very unsuccessfully to break) and everyone rejoiced. Even the industry welcomed the low budget "sleeper hit". So when the promos for Mithya, very loudly proclaiming to be a product from the makers of Bheja Fry, hit screens, expectations naturally sky-rocketed.

Kudos to Rajat Kapoor for experimenting with a diametrically opposite formula this time around. Nothing in Mithya can remind you of Bheja Fry — not the genre, the treatment, nor, unfortunately, even the execution. Now Mithya isn't a bad film. On the surface, it's quite alright actually. It's bold and simple, a little dark, tragic too, and it has that very appealing kitsch-y feel to it. However, somewhere along the way, I suspect between scripting and filming, a little improvisation broke the film down.

The story is simple. Ranvir Shorey stars in two roles, one as a struggling theater actor (VK), overdosing on Hamlet, and another as a dreaded underworld gangster (Raje). A rival gangster notices the actor, kills the gangster, sneaks the actor in to pose as the gangster, and then… unfortunately, I'm not hiding the suspense here. Rajat Kapoor and Suarabh Shukla (co-writer of Satya) also apparently were left with an ellipsis around this point. So they fill it in with amnesia, emotion, double-crossing, very, very, very dark frames, and Neha Dhupia. None of these worked for me though.

Of the cast, Ranvir Shorey is once again well-intentioned, but somehow neither fills the mould of a gangster nor an actor, and seems most comfortable spouting Hindi Hamlet very passionately. Iravati Mahadev as Raje's wife Revati has an insignificant role that she's very good in. Harsh Chhaya does a convincing job of sounding and acting menacing as the brother, and Neha Dhupia is, well, not bad for a change. In fact, the first twenty to twenty-five minutes of the film are quite engaging. In parts, the camera work reminds one of the early days of the Coen brothers, circa Miller's Crossing, but the similarity with that gangster flick ends right there. In fact, even the camera work gets repetitive and dark to the point of a little difficulty in discerning different characters other than from voice. More importantly though, there is a clear lack of coherence in the screenwriter's mind, and this translates very easily from a potentially thrilling premise to an eventual emotional drama.

To give due where deserved, Mithya does stand out from other contemporary films with its lack of standardized formula. Despite its flaws and soporific tone, it attempts to, and probably does, make way for such experimental dramas. The character of VK after his amnesia has a larger scope for acting and almost gets it right. However, it falls miles short of being path-breaking cinema. The one stand-out redeeming factor in the otherwise tepid two hours odd of the film is its ending, which is fitting, albeit a little too dramatic.

My greatest lament after watching this film is the tremendous waste of a talent like Naseeruddin Shah. That Vinay Pathak agreed to do an equally insignificant cameo is understandable given the debt of gratitude he probably owes the filmmaker for Bheja Fry, but Naseeruddin Shah makes a bigger mess in this film than he did with the directorial debut. Arindam Chaudhary seems to have made a camp of his own of some very talented unconventional actors. I'm a little surprised none of them commented on the fact that the second half of this film goes nowhere. In fact, even though I'm against remakes as an idea, perhaps Shukla and Kapoor can someday re-write this script, halfway into the film, and think out the plot and pace a lot better.

'Nuff said, then. To sum it up, I'd give Mithya, on a scale of 1 to 10, a more-than-modest 7, most of it for a few scenes, and to applaud the effort to make unconventional cinema. Hopefully, Rajat Kapoor will get it right next time. For now however, Mithya is just that, an illusion.